Criminal proceedings cannot be quashed based on allegations of a civil nature if prima facie offences are established in the complaint.

VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J.

1. The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973['For short ‘Cr.P.C’] has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused, seeking to quash the proceedings against him in Crime No.9 of 2020 of Bhakarapet Police Station, Chittoor District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE [For short ‘I.P.C.’]

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:

a. On 23.05.2014, Respondent No.2/Complainant purchased a plot from one Gundluru Maheswari vide Doc.No.l026 of 2013 of Gottikallu S.R.O for an amount of Rs.70,000/- and for the construction of two stair house in the said land, he paid an amount of Rs.21,00,000/- on installment basis to the Petitioner/Accused and entered into an agreement to that effect, But, the Petitioner has not completed the said work and caused troubles to him. When the Complainant questioned about the same, the Petitioner has not given proper reply and asked the complainant to do whatever he can.

-

b. Construction of the said building was stopped in the middle, The remaining amount after deducting the cost of the construction done by the Petitioner estimated by a Civil Engineer is Rs.6,10,000/-.The Petitioner has been dragging on the matter without paying the same, As such, the Complainant lodged the present complaint against the accused.

Grounds Sought for Quashment

3. Aggrieved by the registration of the said crime, the Petitioner/Accused filed the present petition seeking quashment of the proceedings against him on the following grounds:

a. The Petitioner had not' committed any offence much less the alleged offence. The entire complaint discloses that it is a civil dispute and there are no ingredients to attract any offence,

b. The alleged estimation was done unilaterally and the Petitioner is not liable to pay the said amount,

c. The complainant entered into development agreement with one A.N.Prasad and the Petitioner has nothing to do with the construction of the said building and there is no agreement between the Petitioner and the Complainant,

d. The present complaint is foisted with a view to extract money from the petitioner in view of the personal disputes between them.

Arguments Advanced at the Bar

4. Heard Sri Kambhampati Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms.D.Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the sent to Respondent No.2, none State/Respondent No.l. Though notice was appeared on his behalf.

-

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner is no concerned with the alleged agreement and no offence has been committed way false and baseless. The matter by him. The allegations leveled against him are and continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner is is of civil nature an abuse of process of law. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Samir Sahay @ Petitioner relied on of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2018) 14 SCC 233. Hence, prayed to Sameer Sahay Vs. State quash the proceedings against the Petitioner.

6. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that, primafacie case is made out against the Petitioner. At this stage. Court cannot quash fade case is made out against the Petitioner. At this the material contents of the the proceedings against the Petitioner, since prays for dismissal of complaint require full pledged investigation. Accordingly, the petition.

Point for Determination

7. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel, now the point that would emerge for determination is;

Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of Crime No.9 of 2020 of Bhakarapet Police Station, Chittoor District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506 IPC against the petitioner?

Dcitermination by the Court

-

8. A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages that inherent powers of the High Court are not